Da Bears look at Arlington Heights for a new stadium

Started by kevinb1994, May 06, 2021, 06:20:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 30, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
Arlington Heights is more convenient for much of the Chicago metro area anyway.

Not from where I live, but I'd still be OK with it. I only average about one game every other year.

Now if the White Sox moved that far away, that would definitely cut down the number of games I go to.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%


KeithE4Phx

Quote from: cabiness42 on June 30, 2021, 10:37:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 30, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
Arlington Heights is more convenient for much of the Chicago metro area anyway.

Not from where I live, but I'd still be OK with it. I only average about one game every other year.

Now if the White Sox moved that far away, that would definitely cut down the number of games I go to.

The Sox were looking at a site in Addison, near where I-290 and I-355 (then IL 53) meet, circa 1986-87.  It was shot down due to environmental concerns, and that's when they started looking at moving to Tampa/St. Pete.  Fortunately, then-Governor Jim Thompson was able to broker a deal to keep the Sox in Chicago, literally 5 minutes before the 1987 legislative session ended.
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

JoePCool14

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 30, 2021, 10:23:00 PM
Arlington Heights is more convenient for much of the Chicago metro area anyway.

It's definitely more convenient for me. I drive by the would-be site quite frequently, but I'm not close enough to be affected during games. I wonder how the residents of Arlington Heights feel. (Let me guess, there's some NIMBYs.)

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

triplemultiplex

Quote from: cabiness42 on June 30, 2021, 09:28:23 PM
In the end, I think the city will let the team go with an agreement that guarantees two Super Bowls within 10 years, probably something else like a draft or two and maybe the combine once or twice, and maybe an agreement to still have one home game per year at Soldier Field the way the Packers used to do with Milwaukee.

At best, they'll probably do a preseason game at Soldier once they have moved to new digs in the burbs.

If Solider Field ends up as a soccer stadium, then they can tear down half of it and still have plenty of room for fans. :P
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Big John

Bump to say the Bears will now contribute $2B to a new stadium inside Chicago.

Henry

Quote from: Big John on March 11, 2024, 07:39:46 AM
Bump to say the Bears will now contribute $2B to a new stadium inside Chicago.
And not only that, it will be a domed stadium to the south of Soldier Field. I always figured that it would have a roof and finally allow the city to host Super Bowls and Final Fours.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Konza

The two publicly financed stadiums in Chicago are both disasters.

You really don't realize how badly they screwed up New Comiskey Park until you visit the two MLB stadiums in Missouri.  Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City was the prototype for Comiskey- it was the last stadium built for baseball before Comiskey was opened in 1991.  But somehow it's a better stadium with more good seats.  When you look over the centerfield scoreboard at Busch Stadium in St. Louis, you see the Gateway Arch.  If Comiskey Park's home plate was in the SW corner of the field like it should be, you'd see the Chicago skyline over the centerfield scoreboard.  But they put home plate in the NW corner, so all you got to see was the high-rise public housing projects across the Dan Ryan Expressway- before they tore them down.

Don't get me started on the wisdom of dropping the spaceship into Soldier Field, other than to say that connecting an 80,000 seat climate-controlled stadium (preferably one with a retractable roof so "Bear Weather" is still a possibility) to McCormick Place would be a serious shot in the arm for Chicago's convention and tourism industry.

One proposal would have a new stadium for the White Sox built in the South Loop and have the Bears stadium built where Comiskey Park now stands.  There are advantages here- parking and access to public transportation being at the top of the list- but I still think you want the Bears stadium close to McCormick Place to draw large conventions.  Maybe an L line to the McCormick Place area and the Museum Campus is part of the plan here.
Main Line Interstates clinched:  2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 55, 57, 59, 65, 68, 71, 72, 74 (IA-IL-IN-OH), 76 (OH-PA-NJ), 78, 80, 82, 86 (ID), 88 (IL)

triplemultiplex

Quote from: Konza on March 11, 2024, 10:51:26 PM
(preferably one with a retractable roof so "Bear Weather" is still a possibility)

Retractable roofs on NFL venues are a waste of money.  Go around the league, the teams that have them, the roof is closed the majority of games.  Hundreds of millions more dollars for an asset that isn't used as much as its intended to.  I think specifically of Houston and Tempe where they close the roof cuz it's too hot.  Oh the Death Star; that one always seems to be closed, too.

Though I must say, leaving the roof open on a shitty day would really make the retractable roof pointless since the whole point in having one is that you close it when it's cold and shitty out.

If they are staying in the city though, I'm glad for that.  Chicago already has elaborate infrastructure to get people to The Loop, why not take advantage of that for sports venues?
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2024, 11:51:19 AM
Quote from: Konza on March 11, 2024, 10:51:26 PM
(preferably one with a retractable roof so "Bear Weather" is still a possibility)

Retractable roofs on NFL venues are a waste of money.  Go around the league, the teams that have them, the roof is closed the majority of games.  Hundreds of millions more dollars for an asset that isn't used as much as its intended to.  I think specifically of Houston and Tempe where they close the roof cuz it's too hot.  Oh the Death Star; that one always seems to be closed, too.

Though I must say, leaving the roof open on a shitty day would really make the retractable roof pointless since the whole point in having one is that you close it when it's cold and shitty out.

If they are staying in the city though, I'm glad for that.  Chicago already has elaborate infrastructure to get people to The Loop, why not take advantage of that for sports venues?

A retractable roof makes a stadium eligible for Super Bowls, college football playoff games, NCAA Final Fours, etc. It's not just about the NFL team's usage.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

triplemultiplex

"That's just like... your opinion, man."

NWI_Irish96

Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2024, 03:28:45 PM
So would a regular dome.

Ah, I thought the argument was against a roof at all, not against a retractable one. I agree that the roof being retractable is an unnecessary expense.
Indiana: counties 100%, highways 100%
Illinois: counties 100%, highways 61%
Michigan: counties 100%, highways 56%
Wisconsin: counties 86%, highways 23%

Henry

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on March 18, 2024, 03:54:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 18, 2024, 03:28:45 PM
So would a regular dome.

Ah, I thought the argument was against a roof at all, not against a retractable one. I agree that the roof being retractable is an unnecessary expense.
Probably because it won't be used as frequently as it is in the MLB ballparks that host up to nine times as many regular season games. So yeah, retractable roofs in the NFL are not exactly a great idea.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Road Hog

I think I can count on one hand the number of times the retractable roof at Jerry World was open for a game since 2009, even in October with perfect weather.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: Road Hog on March 19, 2024, 02:15:33 AM
I think I can count on one hand the number of times the retractable roof at Jerry World was open for a game since 2009, even in October with perfect weather.
Whereas I was at a single baseball game in Milwaukee where they opened and closed the roof three times.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

RobbieL2415

Someone earlier in this thread asked why the old Yankee Stadium is gone.

I believe one of the reasons we saw it get completely torn down and replaced is that the building and land were owned by the City and not by the Yankees directly. Any renovation plans would have to get City approval.

Old YS's ownership history is rather interesting. At one point, the land it sat on was owned by Rice University as the previous owner died and bequeathed it to them.

Flint1979

Chicago in general has some really pathetic owners, especially McCaskey and Reinsdorf.

Henry

Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 02, 2021, 02:59:20 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 30, 2021, 09:28:23 PMIn the end, I think the city will let the team go with an agreement that guarantees two Super Bowls within 10 years, probably something else like a draft or two and maybe the combine once or twice, and maybe an agreement to still have one home game per year at Soldier Field the way the Packers used to do with Milwaukee.

At best, they'll probably do a preseason game at Soldier once they have moved to new digs in the burbs.

If Solider Field ends up as a soccer stadium, then they can tear down half of it and still have plenty of room for fans. :P
In the newest plans, Soldier Field would be torn down with the exception of the colonnades, so a soccer stadium is out of the question. This is the biggest consequence of having its historic status taken away.

When the new stadium is finished, then Green Bay will be the only NFC North team without a dome to play in, and Lambeau Field is good enough for them.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.